User talk:Digmores

Re: Internet in australia

Thanks for your message! I'm still interested in helping fix the 'Internet in Australia' article, I've just had a really, really busy time recently. I've given some of my thoughts on sections that could be added to the article on the talk page, but I'm really keen to see what others have to say. Please go forth and edit mercilessly, and I'll be here to take a look at anything and answer any questions if you need me :) -gummAY (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Too hard for me! But at least it was better than it was. Icd (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed Australia articles is ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Category:Unassessed Australia articles as the next Australian Collaboration. It has been selected. Please help to reduce the backlog as you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Hi, together with yourself and others I have been trying to clean this article up, and have had a go at the Australia part. I was the guy who attributed some of Hawke's 'reforms' to the earlier work of Howard as treasurer. This was purely on the basis of my personal memories about, eg, his Campbell Committee (and you're quite right, some citation is needed). Before I go looking for the citations, can I ask you to check out the content of John Howard#Federal Treasurer (1977–1983) (none of which was written by me)and let me know whether you can see why I raised this argument. I have no personal commitment to either side of Australian politics and will not enter any 'edit war' about it! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Internet in New Zealand

I presume your deletion of the existing talk page material was accidental, but please be more careful in future. Richard001 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

drafting

Pricing

In October 2008, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) compared countries where more than 50% of offers had bit/data caps. Out of the 13, four countries (including Australia)had 100% of plan options with download caps and ranked fourth in average download limit size (27MB). It ranked number one by a wide margin in the average price per additional MB after reaching the cap, at 0.103 USD. The second highest was Ireland at 0.018 USD per MB. In a sample comparison of 27 countries, all in Europe and North America along with Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, between 2005 and 2008 inclusive, the fastest DSL service was Japan and Korea at 102,400 kbit/s. Australia was ranked fourth from the bottom at 1,536 kbit/s, above Greece, Spain and Mexico who were each 1,024 kbit/s. Cable internet in Australia ranked third in greatest increase in speed, from 2,880 kbit/s in 2005 to 20,000 kbit/s in 2008, compared to the other 27 countries. While all but two countries lowered their prices by an estimated average of 10% per year, Australia raised its prices by an average of 14% per year.

table

Season	Members	Total Attendance	Average Attendance	Finishing position
2005	5,000	729,754	31,511	14th
2006	11,100	691,924	31,541	11th
2007	22,600	881,144	36,714	6th
2008	17,225	1,164,396	46,575	1st
2009	17,500	895,089	40,686	9th
2010	50,9781	N/A	N/A	N/A

Inverted totalitarianism

Hi Dimores,

Thanks for your editorial input. Despite its bringing things into a new light, Wolin's recent work has been ignored, so it is to be expected that if a Wikipedia article summarizing that work appears (his work being a very appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, given that he is attempting to bring the fundamental categories of political theory up to date, something few other people are doing), it will be subjected to scrutiny. But really, all I was doing in that article is "channeling" Wolin, and when it comes to other sources, I don't make it a habit of reporting them inaccurately, even if I don't give precise references.

So I'm very thankful for the help you're offering me to give me friendly feedback before more hostile people notice the article. I'm responding to your post on my talk page, which I appreciate, here; I'll respond to your new entry on the article's talk page in the next few days. Unless something unexpected happens, to keep things as simple as possible, let's restrict our comments to each other to the article's talk page. I'd be thankful if you would in effect act as my editor in that way, since this is the first Wikipedia article I have written, so I'm sure I can use some guidance.

Cheers, Herzen (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inverted totalitarianism editing list

• First sectence should introduce the article, the first sentence should define what inverted totalitarianism is the attributing of whom was responsible for originally createing it should come a little later.

• carefull of using Jargon such as "ideal type" (second sentance) it can be preferable to use more words in order to explain something.

• when presenting the definition or opening sentance there should be a reference after it or a reference after the sentance following the first sentance

• do not engage in essay like format, saying things will be contrasted or questions will be answered e.g.

"Inverted totalitarianism is to be contrasted with classical totalitarianism" (contrasting 2 concepts )

"With these five political types in place, the question arises: given the transformations that Superpower has undergone during the military mobilization required to fight the Axis powers, and during the subsequent campaign of containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, does Superpower, in its domestic aspects, continue to resemble a liberal democracy, or is it itself taking on totalizing tendencies? " (asks a question)

the reason for this is that when other editors come along they will make changes (thats just wikipedia) and the page will become confusing as what was once a singular argument has other editors contributions in it, and removing these contributions could be interpreted as Ownership of the page which is against the rules.

• when mentioning people and their views theories e.g. Hanna Arendt source them (i saw u did this just before i posted GJ)

• be precise e.g.

By the middle of the twentieth century (when exactly or specific decade 1950s)

First Hanna Arendt, among others (who are the others, if there are a large number of supporting theorists pick the ones that have the strongest links but be specific)

• quotes try to find quotes that are more concise meaning one or two key sentences rather than a paragraph if possible.

• the thing that will help the most is to change the structure of the article so that it is not an essay but an encyclopedia entry with sections addressing the subject. an example structure may be

intro

section 1 (background) gives a lead up introduces the reader to the subject, sectioning this also means that if the reader is farmiliar with broad subject they can skip it and move on the theory

section 2 (addresses key concept A) -subheadings can be put if needed

Section 3 (Addresses key concept B)

Section 4 (gives indepth examples or case studies)

ANZ relations

The section isn't valid in context - it's simply one guy's opinion and I cannot find any evidence that beyond a single speech by a single person this is even a standing issue, let alone coverage which represents the consensus of reliable sources. Please note WP:UNDUE, which has the status of policy. Orderinchaos 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD at Tony Abbott

For heaven's sake, if you think there is acceptable compromise text, then put it in, don't just keep trying to re-add the same text that has active opposition. The onus is on you guys that like the text to come up with text that has WP:CONS. The onus is not on me, who dislikes the changes, to fix up your crap you are trying to push into the article. --Surturz (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, for crying out loud, I even went to a fair bit of effort to detail what I didn't like about the additions and what I didn't mind. How much easier does it need to be for you to do a bit of actual editing? --Surturz (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in trying to prove your WP:POINT, you've managed to get the article locked. I hope you've learned something. --Surturz (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In which case use your sandbox, or the talk page to work on the new text. Go back and cut-paste from an old revision. All the tools are available, I don't see any reason to leave crappy text in the article, particularly as WP:BLP more-or-less forbids it. --Surturz (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

You nay read about neoliberalisn here. But there are many books about it. TFD (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

draft

Result

State	On rolls	Ballots issued	For		Against		Informal
				%		%
New South Wales	3,007,511	2,774,388	1,931,775	%70.71	800,331	%29.29	42,282
Victoria	2,252,831	2,083,136	1,325,708	%65.00	713,929	%35.00	43,499
Queensland	1,241,426	1,138,842	534,968	%47.51	590,942	%52.49	12,932
South Australia	799,243	745,990	480,827	%65.99	247,762	%34.01	17,401
Western Australia	682,291	617,463	292,344	%48.47	310,765	%51.53	14,354
Tasmania	259,081	246,063	82,785	%34.26	158,818	%65.74	4,460
Total for Commonwealth	8,242,383	7,605,882	4,648,407	%62.22	2,822,547	%37.78	134,928
Obtained majority in three States and an overall majority of 1,825,860 votes.
Not carried

http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/results_republic.htm

Unsourced Additions

Your edit at Stargate: The Ark of Truth see [1] has been reverted. Your edit did not reflect the source provided and thusly appears to be unconstructive. If you have a valid and reliable source to reference the number you posted on this page please add it. Thank you. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)